On Ethics and History

by Zhang Xuecheng

  The analogies between people’s [own moral problems] and those similar in kind move them to reflect. They thereby arrive at so-called “sincere opinions.” They disapprove of what they consider to be wrong and approve of what they consider to be right, take pride in and cherish [their judgments] and regard them as original insights into obscure and subtle affairs. They then proceed to match [their judgments] up [with the things they know] and correlate them [with the principles they accept]. Carrying this process out to its extreme limit, they find that they end up seeing things as they did before, when they [uncritically] accepted with complete conviction [the cases of] Yao and Jie. However, earlier, they did not understand why [they made such judgments] and now they do. And so, they see things differently than they did before, but what they say is not in any way different from what they said earlier. This is why the “original insights” that those who do not think through their judgments of right and wrong take such pride in all accord with accepted norms and [thus] are unremarkable.

  Once a wine maker brewed some wine that came out sour. So he wrote, in large characters, “Sour wine—reduced price!” on his gate, with the hope of selling it off quickly. An illiterate customer came into the wine shop, drank some of the wine and found it was sour, but he thought the owner was not aware of this. The customer departed, leaving behind the wine he had ordered. [Seeing this,] the owner ran after him to give him [the wine he had left behind]. Now the customer thought the owner was treating him rather well and so pulled him aside and discreetly said to him, “The wine in your shop is sour. Why don’t you reduce the price and sell it off quickly!” Hearing this, the owner of the shop could not but smile. And so, if one does not think through one’s judgments of right and wrong, the original insights that one takes such pride in will be like the [customer’s] pronouncement that the shop owner’s wine was sour.

  Certainly there is no need to debate about [our judgments] regarding Yao and Jie. And yet, one who had experienced the benevolence of Yao would almost be unable to talk about Yao, even though he would be just the person who really approves of Yao. One who had suffered the cruelty of Jie would almost be unable to describe Jie, even though he would be just the person who really disapproves of Jie. Our eternal convictions regarding Yao and Jie seem to be inferences that began in what was almost ineffable and indescribable and only later became our convictions concerning Yao and Jie. And so, those who have real knowledge of right and wrong are not able to speak glibly of right and wrong.7 The learning of those who have real knowledge in approving of Yao or disapproving of Jie lies in what precedes the approval or disapproval, not [simply] in the approval of Yao and disapproval of Jie.

  I am not denying that one should approve of Yao and disapprove of Jie, esteem [true] kings and hold hegemons in low regard,8 pay homage to the Duke of Zhou9 and Kongzi and reject heterodox teachings,10 deem Cheng Yi and Zhu Xi as correct and Lu Jiuyuan and Wang Yangming as one-sided. 11 [However] those who [simply] accept such things as conventional convictions and speak of them glibly, I know that they lack real knowledge.

  ESSAY 5

  The Difficulty of Being Understood

  Is it more difficult to act, or to understand?1 In the case of understanding other people, understanding is neither [simply a matter of] understanding their surname or personal name nor understanding their voice or appearance. It is to read their books, to understand their words, and to understand why they wrote as they did. Many in the world will read their books, but not a hundred in a thousand will understand their words. Few in the world will understand their words, but not one in a hundred will understand why they wrote as they did. And yet everyone in the world says, “I am able to read their books and I understand why they wrote as they did.” This is the difficulty with understanding.

  People understand that the Book of Changes is a book of divination, [but] when Kongzi read it, he fully understood the distress of its author.2 This is a case of one sage understanding another. People understand that [Qu Yuan‘s] “Encountering Sorrow”3 is the archetype of poetry in the rhyme-prose style, [but] when Sima Qian read it he was in complete sympathy with its author’s motivations.4 This is a case of one worthy understanding another. To be without Sima Qian’s motives and hope to understand Qu Yuan’s motives, or to be without Kongzi’s distress and hope to understand King Wen’s distress-this is more or less a lost cause! And so it is that more than a few of the ancients, who had their personal distress and individual motives but unfortunately did not find later readers who could be distressed by their distress or motivated by their motives, have become lost to obscurity. Liu Xie said, “When [Qinshi Huangdi] first saw [Han Feizi’s] ‘Collected Explanations’ and when Emperor Wu first read [Sima Xiangru’s rhyme-poem] ‘Sir Fantasy,’ they each expressed the regret that [the authors of these works] were not their contemporaries.5 [However], once they discovered that these authors were in fact their contemporaries, Qinshi Huangdi had Han Feizi thrown into jail and Emperor Wu showed little regard for Sima Xiangru.6 It would seem [Liu Xie] was bemoaning the fact that one cannot rely on those who understand one in one’s own time. Nevertheless, Li Si’s fear of Han Feizi and Emperor Wu’s showing little regard to Sima Xiangru are cases of profound understanding and appropriate response. These things could not have been otherwise, given the circumstances. These are cases of what is known as ”on the outside appearing not to understand [each other], but understanding each other’s heart-minds.“7

  Jia Yi was banished to Changsha [but] later summoned to court.8 King Wen [of the Han] said [of Jia Yi], “It has been a long time since I last saw him. Earlier, I thought I was his superior. Seeing him now, I know I am not as good as he.”9 One can say that here was a successful meeting of ruler [King Wen] and minister [Jia Yi]. And yet, Jia Yi failed to understand how to memorialize the throne in regard to the proper methods of governing. He only understood how to answer [the King’s questions] concerning ghosts and spirits. This is a case of what is known as “on the outside appearing to understand [each other], but not understanding [each other’s] heart-minds.”10

  Liu Zhiji took as his vocation the study of bygone ages but was held in low regard in his own time. Since he served three times as court historian and twice as secretary of history, one can say he enjoyed success.11 And yet, when he talked of the [special] talent of the historian he was widely criticized and when he discussed the facts of history not a single word he said was accepted. This is a case of what is known as “on the outside understanding [each other], but not understanding each other’s heart-minds.”12

  Those who understand each other on the outside can end up like Jia Yi, who was understood [when it came to ghosts and spirits] but not employed, or like Liu Zhiji, who was employed but not trusted [in his scholarly opinions]. Those who understand each other’s heart-minds can end up like Sima Xiangru, who was ridiculed and held in low regard, or like Han Feizi, who was slandered and [sentenced to] death. If men of talent look for understanding in their own age, they will be very lucky to do as well as Han Feizi, Sima Xiangru, Jia Yi, or Liu Zhiji. However, if one achieves their successes, one will suffer their losses. Other people may prove to be reliable or they may prove to be unreliable; they may understand [you] or they may not understand [you]. This is why it is difficult to talk about meeting someone [in your own age] who understands you.

  Zhuangzi said, “All those who have mastered some skill believe that no one can improve upon what they do.”13 Now the ears, eyes, mouth, and nose all have something they each know well, but they are unable to communicate this [knowledge] to one another. And yet each regards its own specialty as something that “no one can improve upon.” This error arises from not knowing oneself. In the world it is rare [to find] people who know themselves; and so, rarely do people understand one another. Many people say that since Xiao Yingshi could recognize Li Hua’s composition “[Lament on] an Old Battlefield,” he had a true appreciation of literature.14 However, words are rooted in the heart-mind; they are as unalike a
s faces.15 Xiao Yingshi could not, at a glance, definitively determine that this [work] was by Li Hua. He only haltingly pronounced that “Li Hua could do something this good.”16 From this we know that he did not yet possess real knowledge.17 However, today not one in ten thousand has the comprehension of Mr. Xiao, and the works to be understood are not just the works of Li Hua! How then can one rely on the world [for understanding]?

  All things that have physical form cannot but have their individual proclivities. All things with blood and breath cannot but have a competitive disposition. Having individual proclivities leads to a struggle for domination; this is the origin of the evil of cliquishness. Having a competitive disposition gives rise to fear and resentment; this is the origin of envy and slander. Huizi said, “Someone rushes off to the east, and one who chases after him also rushes off to the east. Though both are going east, their reasons for going are different.”18 Nowadays many people pursue the same kind of work, but can they all be motivated by the same kind of reasons? Other people may prove to be reliable or they may prove to be unreliable; they may understand [you] or they may not understand [you]. This is why it is difficult to talk about being understood by those who follow the same way.

  Ouyang Xiu once lamented that [Liu Xin’s] bibliography included so many titles of works now lost, saying how unfortunate it was for these authors.19 It would seem he was distressed by the fact that written works could not be relied upon [as a guarantee that one would be understood]. And yet, since the capture of the unicorn, we have works [on history] by authors such as Sima Qian and Ban Gu.20 This must be regarded as fortunate indeed! As for Sima Qian, he said he would store his work away in a “famous mountain” and let it pass down to someone in the future [who would be sympathetic to his work]. In the case of Ban Gu, his younger sister completed his work, and Ma Rong prostrated himself at her door in order to receive the [finished] manuscript.21 Today, these works are [as clear and bright as] the sun and moon. Yet if one reads the Records of the Grand Historian or the History of the Han Dynasty and examines the commentaries of scholars like Xu Guang, Pei Yin, Fu Qian, or Ying Shao, one finds they miss the points Sima Qian or Ban Gu are making, forty to fifty percent of the time.22 If even the concerted efforts of such specialists are incapable of comprehending the subtleties of the ancients, how much less is a cursory and subjective appraisal likely to succeed? And can the love or hate [that an author receives from such appraisals] ever be laid to rest?

  If someone’s works are not handed down, then one regrets these omissions in the official bibliography. However, those whose works are handed down may still encounter the misfortune that people will miss their meaning, and they will suffer the fate of being loved or hated for the wrong reasons. Other people may prove to be reliable or they may prove to be unreliable; they may understand [you] or they may not understand [you]. This is why it is difficult to talk about being understood by posterity.

  People differ from wood and stone in that they have feelings. What makes feelings so valuable is that by means of our commonly shared joys, we are able to understand each other. If a worthy is not successful in life and is unable to find those who will join him to implement his aims, he may, in the midst of his failure, find those who share his delight in the Way. If during his lifetime he is not successful in meeting [such] people, he may, in death, await someone from a later generation who will understand him. However, one who shares his principles may not share his experiences. One who grasps his outward expressions may not grasp his inner heart-mind. Other people may prove to be reliable or they may prove to be unreliable; they may understand [you] or they may not understand [you]. Those to come will look at the present as we look at the past.

  Ah! This is why Bo Ya cut the strings of his zither and would not play.23 This is why Mr. Bian concealed his jade and cried aloud.24 Many [other birds] join in with the chirping of quails and magpies. Reeds, rushes, and common varieties of grass are found in large abundance. The phoenix [though] soars up eight thousand feet high; the Dryandra tree, standing alone, grows to a girth of eight hundred feet around.25 I know why they are rare and solitary and why they can never be forced to follow the crowd. This is simply the way things are! And so the gentleman “exerts himself, forgetful of his food and cultivates himself in seclusion, unaware that old age is fast approaching.”26 This is how I seek to attend to my affairs! How, within a finite life, can one hope to account for the infinite [possibilities for] slander and praise?27

  ESSAY 6

  The Analogy of Heaven

  Heaven is formless and nameless.1 The three celestial fields,2 the seven luminous objects,3 the twenty-eight lunar lodges,4 the twelve divisions,5 the three hundred and sixty-five degrees,6 the ecliptic, and the equator are all names that astronomers have forced upon7 [Heaven] in order to keep track of their calculations. Through the course of time, [people] have joined together the Heavenly by adjusting the balance between embellishment and native substance8 and divided the Heavenly by creating schools of learning, administrative functions, literature, and philosophy. At first, people simply perceived how things should be (dangran) and acted only according to what had to be done.9 [Heaven was still] formless and without fixed names. As things were divided and separated into different categories, they began to be called “embellishment” and “native substance.” These in turn became “schools of learning,” “administrative functions,” “literature,” and “philosophy.” Such things could no longer be joined together, because people sought to deal with this situation by employing what was one-sided and by elevating to prominence what they themselves knew in order to display their knowledge to others. [They were] unable to stop, [and] the names that they forced upon Heaven became fixed as distinct tendencies. The people of later ages did not examine the underlying reasons for things but just accepted and followed the [established] names, believing that in this way they could defend their individual positions. The situation became a confused struggle for domination. The mutual antagonism between Han Learning and Song Learning,10 the reciprocal condemnations of philologists and literary people,11 and the conflict between [honoring] one’s virtuous nature and [pursuing] study and inquiry12 all arose from understanding how things are but not understanding that by which they are as they are (the suoyiran).13

  Schools of learning have as their purpose bringing order to the world, just as astronomers seek to bring all human endeavors into line with the motions of Heaven.14 At first, [in the course of history,] there was no notion of insisting upon one’s own ideas. What earlier people had worked out in general, later people pursued in detail; what earlier people lacked, later people created; what earlier people had mastered, later people improved upon. It is like the way in which the astronomical method for determining the solstices that is described in the “Monthly Orders” is not the same as that described in the “Canon of Yao,” or the calendrical system described by the “Grand Beginning” is not the same as that described in “Monthly Orders.”15 The aim, though, in every case was to accord with what is proper. The Duke of Zhou carried on the legacy of kings Wen and Wu, personally serving as prime minister. And so, he set the standard for all time in regard to institutions, rites, and music. Kongzi lived in an era of [social and political] decay; he possessed Virtue but lacked an official positions.16 And so, he “transmitted but did not create,” in order to make clear the great dao of the former kings.17 Mengzi’s age was one in which itinerant scholars constantly wrangled with one another. And so, he applied himself to opposing [the teaching of] Yang and Mo in order to honor what Kongzi had transmitted. 18 In Han Yu’s time, Buddhism and Daoism flared up like a raging fire. And so, Mengzi advocated the sage’s dao in order to rectify the learning that was being practiced in the world.19 The Cheng brothers and Zhu Xi faced an age in which learning had become debased and its foundations had been forgotten.20 They argued for nature and principle in order to reform the common tendencies of people’s heart-minds.

  In their actions and achievements, these men
did not imitate one another, and yet they all taught with the aim of bringing order to the world. And so, a school of learning is how one deals with an intellectual fashion. Before an intellectual fashion has begun, a school of learning can begin it. Once an intellectual fashion has become defective, a school of learning can reform it. The intellectual fashions of the human heart-mind cannot long endure without becoming defective, just as the method Xi and He devised for adjusting the calendar could not long endure without incurring error.21 To amend [an intellectual fashion] once it has become defective is like the modifications and adjustments astronomers make [to their systems] as errors arise. The errors of astronomers arise either because of overestimations or underestimations; the defects of intellectual traditions arise either because of overemphasis or underemphasis. If the one-sidedness that arises from overestimation, underestimation, and overemphasis and underemphasis is not addressed as it reaches its extreme, then one will be unable to attain the proper balance. Scholars who are obsessed with fame pursue their own school of learning by following [whatever] intellectual trend [is in vogue]; this only adds flames to the fire and water to the flood.